On July 4, President Donald Trump signed into law a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) application extension bill that Congress had quickly passed just before the Independence Day holiday. According to several senators, the measure was "surprisingly" introduced and approved by unanimous consent in the Senate late on June 30. It cleared the House the evening of July 1.

On July 4, President Donald Trump signed into law a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) application extension bill that Congress had quickly passed just before the Independence Day holiday. According to several senators, the measure was "surprisingly" introduced and approved by unanimous consent in the Senate late on June 30. It cleared the House the evening of July 1.

Most notably, the bill pushes out the PPP application window deadline five weeks from June 30 to August 8. "The resources are there. The need is there. We just need to change the date," Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said. Prior to the extension, the small business loan program was set to expire at midnight on July 1 with over $130 billion left in funding.

Mnuchin, Rettig Testify
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig testified before House and Senate committees on June 30, just hours before the PPP application period was set to close.

"There appears to be bipartisan support to repurpose the [remaining] $134 billion for PPP," Mnuchin told lawmakers during a House Financial Services Committee hearing on June 30. Mnuchin stated that "it should be done," and that the administration is looking toward targeted industry-specific relief.

Additionally, Mnuchin told lawmakers that he has been having discussions about more PPP-related relief with the House and Senate Small Business Committees. Reportedly, lawmakers are currently considering an extension or a second round of the PPP.

As for "phase four" of Congress’s next economic relief package, Mnuchin again alluded to a narrower approach. "We would anticipate that any additional relief would be targeted to certain industries that have been especially hard-hit by the pandemic, with a focus on jobs and putting all American workers who lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, back to work."

Meanwhile, several PPP-related bills have been introduced in the Senate over the last few weeks, and most recently a bipartisan PPP Forgiveness bill introduced on June 30. The Paycheck Protection Small Business Forgiveness Bill, authored by bipartisan members of the Senate Banking Committee, would streamline the forgiveness of certain PPP loans.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, also called for an extension of the small business loan program. "It is the last day small business can apply for PPP, but the economic crisis is not over. Senators Cardin, Shaheen, Coons and I will take to the Senate floor and demand we pass a bill to extend it," Schumer said in a June 30 tweet.

IRS 2020 Filing Season, Agency Redesign
In other news, Rettig testified on June 30 before the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) on IRS operations during the 2020 tax filing season. Notably, Rettig told senators that the decision not to further extend the 2019 tax year filing and payment deadline beyond July 15 was made in consultation with professional services organizations, adding that too many due dates can be confusing for taxpayers.

To that end, Treasury first signaled in a June 29 press release that it would not further extend the 2020 filing season. "Treasury and IRS encourage taxpayers to file their taxes by July 15, or file for an automatic extension of time to file to October 15," the press release stated.

"The IRS understands that those affected by the coronavirus may not be able to pay their balances in full by July 15, but we have many payment options to help taxpayers," Rettig said in the press release. "These easy-to-use payment options are available on IRS.gov, and most can be done automatically without reaching out to an IRS representative."

Additionally, Rettig told SFC members that the IRS is well underway in its redesign of the agency for the first time in over 20 years. As noted in Rettig’s testimony, the foundational components of a new holistic taxpayer experience will include the following:

• Expanded Digital Services. An improved experience through self-service digital channels by building upon existing online accounts and introducing online accounts for tax professionals and business taxpayers.
• Seamless Experience. Taxpayers should be guided to the resources and communication channels that will resolve their issues most effectively and efficiently.
• Proactive Outreach and Education. Educate the taxpayer community by proactively providing information in the language, timing, and method taxpayers need or prefer.
• Focused Strategies for Reaching Underserved Communities. Establish a consolidated program to engage with historically underserved communities to address issues of communication, education, transparency and trust, as well as access to quality products and services.
• Ecosystem of Partnerships. Establish, shepherd, and facilitate a collaborative and interactive network of partnerships across the entire tax ecosystem and bring together existing efforts.
• Enterprise Data Management and Advanced Analytics. An enterprise data management strategy that includes a cross-enterprise understanding of the customer experience, emerging needs and expectations, and operational data.

"If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me." — William Shakespeare

"If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me." — William Shakespeare

The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) was enacted under the bipartisan Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) on March 27, 2020. The PPP, a seemingly ever-evolving small business loan program, was derived from an unprecedented partnership between certain private lending institutions and the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). After its enactment in late March, the program quickly went from concept to implementation when it launched on April 3, 2020.

Fast forward to a somewhat rocky roll-out with several speed bumps and shake-ups, akin to a Shakespearean plotline, President Donald Trump on June 5, 2020, signed into law the bipartisan Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act (PPPFA) of 2020 ( P.L. 116-142). The PPPFA makes several enhancements to the swiftly implemented loan program, including providing for an extension of the expense forgiveness period from 8-to-24 weeks. The legislation also reduces the 75 percent payroll ratio requirement to 60 percent, extends the two-year loan repayment requirement to five years for future borrowers (existing PPP loans can be extended up to five years if lender/borrower agree), allows payroll tax deferment for PPP recipients, and extends the June 30, 2020, rehiring deadline to December 31, 2020.

Accordingly, the SBA, in consultation with Treasury, officially published in the Federal Register updated interim final rules (effective immediately upon publication, as opposed to the "regular order" of first issuing a proposed rule with a preliminary comment period) on June 16 and June 18, and issued new and revised forgiveness applications forms on June 17. Additional guidance is expected. The SBA is accepting comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov.

Wolters Kluwer recently spoke with Daniel G. Strickland, an associate with Eversheds Sutherland, about some of the underlying tax policy issues and lingering complexities with the PPP, and subsequent legislation and guidance. Strickland, who regularly works with the IRS on behalf of taxpayers to obtain benefits offered by the IRS, and with taxpayers to resolve tax controversy disputes with the IRS, currently serves as co-chair of the Federal Bar Association’s Tax Practice and Procedure Committee, as well as chair of the D.C. Bar Association’s New Tax Practitioner Subcommittee. Prior to tax practice, Strickland clerked for several years at the U.S. Tax Court.

To Double-Dip, or not to Double-Dip: That is the Question…(Well, One of Them)
Wolters Kluwer: Can you expand upon the preventive double-benefit tax policy position behind the IRS’s controversial Notice 2020-32, I.R.B. 2020-21, 837, which states that business expenses paid with tax-exempt income, i.e. a forgivable PPP loan, are not deductible under Code Sec. 265? Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said recently, "if the money that is coming is not taxable, you can't double dip."

Daniel Strickland: Good question. As you correctly state, the IRS published Notice 2020-32 to address the tax treatment of expenses that would otherwise be deductible but that were paid using PPP loan proceeds that are forgiven.

From the IRS’s perspective, Congress only exempted the amount of forgiveness from taxation; it did not allow deductions for the expenses paid with forgiven proceeds. Notice 2020-32 points to section 265 as providing legal support for the proposition that otherwise-deductible expenses are not allowable for deduction to the extent that the income is wholly exempt from taxation.

My take is that the IRS is drawing a line at government-sponsored business expenses. In other words, for the taxpayers to receive forgiveness, the loan proceeds must be spent in a certain way. If they are, then it is as if the government paid those expenses directly in a valiant effort to prop up the COVID-affected small businesses. But there is an issue with the IRS’s position: a borrower cannot know the extent to which it will even be eligible for forgiveness—let alone whether its substantiation will be sufficient. And given the deadline for application for forgiveness, borrowers might not even know in the same tax year.

Wolters Kluwer: Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex., recently introduced the bipartisan Small Business Expense Protection Act ( S. 3612), which moves to essentially nullify Notice 2020-32, clarifying congressional intent that the receipt and forgiveness of a PPP loan would not affect the deductibility of ordinary business expenses. What is your take on the underlying policy of this bill, and do you see the IRS reversing Notice 2020-32 before the measure moves through Congress?

Daniel Strickland: Senator Cornyn has the right idea. In my mind, a few simple examples show the logic: If I borrowed money from a bank and spent the proceeds on deductible expenses, I could deduct those expenses from my income when I file my taxes. If the bank forgave my debt, I would need to recognize the forgiven amount as income. If, on the other hand, I received a gift, I could also use that gift to pay for deductible expenses and then deduct those expenses from my income. I would not generally include the gift in my income – setting aside the differences between corporate taxes and individual taxes—since many small businesses are sole proprietorships or disregarded entities. When the CARES Act provided that the forgiven PPP loan amounts were not subject to tax, conceptually, the loans are turned into gifts. The deductibility should be no different. And the tax treatment should be the same irrespective of the type of corporate entity involved.

That is where the Senator is coming from. Unfortunately, the existence of a bill in Congress isn’t going to be enough to convince the IRS to about-face. The fact that there are still holds on Senator Cornyn’s bill is concerning to me.

"Know You of This Taxation?"
Wolters Kluwer: Are there other tax-related implications taxpayers and practitioners should keep in mind specific to PPP loan forgiveness?

Daniel Strickland: There are always tax implications. In the absence of congressional action on the deductibility question, another arises regarding timing. As detailed in the SBA’s interim final rule, SBA-2020-0035:

If you do not submit to your lender a loan forgiveness application within 10 months after the end of your loan forgiveness covered period, you must begin paying principal and interest after that period. For example, if a borrower’s PPP loan is disbursed on June 25, 2020, the 24-week period ends on December 10, 2020. If the borrower does not submit a loan forgiveness application to its lender by October 10, 2021, the borrower must begin making payments on or after October 10, 2021.

Taxpayers may not know whether—or to what extent—their PPP loans are forgiven until 2021, and some may not know until after they file their 2020 income tax returns. How should the deductions be reported?

In addition, we don’t know how the state and local taxing authorities will react.

Wolters Kluwer: Although the SBA, in consultation with Treasury, has addressed the PPPFA’s 60 percent "cliff" to allow for partial forgiveness if the 60 percent threshold is not reached, an added variable to the equation now exists. According to a June 8 joint Treasury/SBA statement and now updated guidance, partial forgiveness will be subject to at least 60 percent of the loan forgiveness amount having been used for payroll costs. What is your interpretation of this new variable, and is the solution to the 60 percent "cliff," as termed by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Me., who was recently drafting a bill to address the issue, correctly addressed through regulatory guidance? Do you foresee any pushback?

Daniel Strickland: If I am honest, this one took me a couple times to read to understand that it isn’t internally inconsistent:

If a borrower uses less than 60 percent of the loan amount for payroll costs during the forgiveness covered period, the borrower will continue to be eligible for partial loan forgiveness, subject to at least 60 percent of the loan forgiveness amount having been used for payroll costs.

I certainly understand what the SBA is trying to do here, but I think the better explanation is in the SBA’s updated interim final rule, Docket No. SBA-2020-0035. The SBA does a great job explaining the math behind the partial forgiveness.

But to your question, I am not sure that this falls within the realm of regulatory guidance. The hurdle is going to be with the language of the PPPFA:

LIMITATION ON FORGIVENESS.—To receive loan forgiveness under this section, an eligible recipient shall use at least 60 percent of the covered loan amount for payroll costs, and may use up to 40 percent of such amount for any payment of interest on any covered mortgage obligation (which shall not include any prepayment of or payment of principal on a covered mortgage obligation), any payment on any covered rent obligation, or any covered utility payment.

That being said, the SBA is creating a taxpayer-favorable solution to the PPPFA’s 60 percent "cliff." I am not sure who in their right mind will object, but given the pressure put onto the SBA’s rules in courts across the country, it will be interesting to see what happens next and how the agencies show reasoned decision-making in their rules that diverge from the statutory text.

"All’s Well That Ends Well?"
Wolters Kluwer: The PPP application process is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2020. Notably, prior to Senate approval of the PPPFA, the congressional record was updated with a letter from the bipartisan, bicameral PPPFA authors and policy architects to state that the PPPFA’s "extension of the covered period does not authorize the [SBA] to issue any new PPP loans after June 30, 2020, as this date remains fixed by section 1102(b) of the CARES Act." Furthermore, Treasury and the SBA, too, recently reaffirmed the June 30 cutoff date.

However, Mnuchin told lawmakers recently that another round of loans is on the discussion table, following Sen. Tim Scott’s, R-S.C., inquiry as to whether there is an appetite for further enhancing and extending the PPP. Moreover, fellow Senate Small Business Committee members Chris Coons, D-Del., and Ben Cardin, D-Md., have introduced the Prioritized Paycheck Protection Program (P4) Bill, which would authorize new lending under the PPP to borrowers with 100 employees or less who have or will soon exhaust the original PPP loan. A Democratic companion bill was introduced in the House on June 18.

Are you aware of any calls among taxpayers or practitioners to extend PPP loan applications beyond June?

Daniel Strickland: The SBA has been processing loans fast, processing more than 14 years’ worth of loans in 14 days in the initial round of funding. Since then, however, things have slowed down. I haven’t heard any calls for extension recently. But at the same time, the most recent numbers I saw suggested that there is still more than $125 billion available. The next round of published data will give us some indication of what happens. If there is still a significant amount of money left over, and if there is a need, I can certainly see Congress extending the loan application deadline without expanding the available funds. It would be additional taxpayer relief at no additional cost to the government. But with the PPPFA’s changes, we might see the remaining funds mostly or completely extended. In that case, I think we wouldn’t see an extension without another tranche of available funding.

"Confusion Now Hath Made His Masterpiece"
Wolters Kluwer: As for when pension expenses are paid and incurred, current guidance does not indicate whether the amount that is "paid by Borrower" can include retirement contributions attributable to all of 2019, 2020, or even the two years combined. Absent any further guidance, how would you advise taxpayers and practitioners on the matter?

Daniel Strickland: That is a tough question. The short answer is that there are a lot of unanswered questions like this one. The SBA and IRS are publishing guidance as quickly as they can, but it isn’t possible to give the requisite considered decision-making and answer all of the outstanding questions at the same time. What that means for taxpayers and practitioners is that each situation needs to be carefully considered. Without specific guidance, there is a risk that certain expenses don’t qualify for forgiveness or that a portion of the loan could be called for repayment.

The first thing that I advise is to work with an attorney to evaluate the specific facts of each situation and to look at the tax and business consequences of each option. In general, where there is no clear answer, having advice in writing from your attorney that the answer you choose is the right answer can help protect businesses from some of the negative consequences of being wrong.

Wolters Kluwer: Outside the most recently published interim final rules, are there other unanswered questions for which you think Treasury and the SBA could issue additional PPP guidance?

Daniel Strickland: There are a number of unanswered questions with respect to definitions. As you reference above, the one that makes most practitioners’ lists is this issue of paid versus incurred. The loan amount is determined using "monthly payments by the applicant for payroll costs incurred." And forgiveness is determined based on "the sum of the following costs incurred and payments made during the covered period." Another outstanding question is how the forgiveness reduction exemptions will work with the cure date being shifted to December 31 and how the "option to use an eight-week covered period" for those taxpayers who have already received their loan proceeds will work if the June 30 cure date falls within the 8-week covered period.

These are just the tip of the iceberg of unanswered questions.

Wolters Kluwer: Executive agencies, including the IRS and SBA, have been increasingly reliant on sub-regulatory FAQs as a means for issuing guidance lately. What are some potential consequences or drawbacks to this method?

Daniel Strickland: Receiving guidance by FAQ is certainly an efficient way to push information out to taxpayers and practitioners. But as you allude, there are some potential issues—both legal and practical. The first for me is in the second introductory paragraph:

Borrowers and lenders may rely on the guidance provided in this document as SBA’s interpretation of the Paycheck Protection Program Interim Final Rules . . . . The U.S. government will not challenge lender PPP actions that conform to this guidance 1[.]

Footnote 1 provides:

This document does not carry the force and effect of law independent of the statute and regulations on which it is based.

Although "borrowers . . . may rely on the guidance," it is only the SBA’s interpretation of its own interim final rules. There is certainly an open question as to the level of deference to which the FAQs are entitled.

Second to that is the issue of whether the government will challenge taxpayer actions that conform to the guidance. Although the guidance provides some comfort to lenders, and the lenders will be the ones approving loan forgiveness applications, there are still a slew of potential consequences in the fine print that could be asserted against borrowers.

Third is the complexity in advising clients. If you are paying daily attention to the guidance, the tempo of guidance isn’t a big deal, but what I am noticing is that the guidance is changing—think about the initial PPP interest rate of 0.50 percent fixed rate announced by Treasury that was later changed to 1.00 percent fixed rate—and few of the published thought guidance pieces are being updated. For practitioners who are trying to play catchup after receiving a client question, this can be complicated and a great deal of time can be lost spinning their wheels trying to figure out why two seemingly well-reasoned articles have divergent facts or conclusions.

Last, but not least, for taxpayers who are looking for answers online, this could be devastating when it comes to applications for forgiveness. If practitioners are having to sift through the outdated legal analysis by comparison to the newest FAQ iteration, how can taxpayers be confident that they are only relying on the correct version. And when the next round of guidance comes out, those taxpayers must rinse and repeat.

"Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow…"
Wolters Kluwer: Looking ahead, any closing thoughts or advice for practitioners related to the PPP moving forward?

Daniel Strickland: We all want to get to the right answer. For taxpayers and practitioners alike, it is important to ask questions. The SBA, for example, is receptive to discussing concerns and comments. And given the frequency of guidance, it is more important than ever to be involved in the process. For taxpayers specifically, asking questions of their advisers can protect small businesses against the "penny-wise, pound-foolish" adage. I know I want to protect my clients from missteps and help them take fullest advantage of these benefits.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Trump Administration’s rule under the Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) that any nongovernment, nonpublicly traded employer can refuse to offer contraceptive coverage for moral or religious reasons, and that publicly traded employers can refuse to do so for religious reasons. Application of this rule had been halted by litigation, but the Administration is now free to apply it.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Trump Administration’s rule under the Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) that any nongovernment, nonpublicly traded employer can refuse to offer contraceptive coverage for moral or religious reasons, and that publicly traded employers can refuse to do so for religious reasons. Application of this rule had been halted by litigation, but the Administration is now free to apply it.

The issues in the case were: (1) whether the ACA actually requires contraceptive coverage or was that just a creature of regulations that any administration may change, and (2) whether the administration complied with Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in light of the surprising breadth of the regulation going well beyond religious objections to include any moral objection.

Contraceptive Regulation
The prior version of this regulation included an exception for religious employers and small businesses with a religious objection. They had to self-certify that they qualified. Some objected. Shortly after the Administration changed hands, it issued a new version as an interim final regulation.

The Treasury, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor Departments have nearly identical versions of these rules. The Treasury version is Reg. §54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv), but it references HHS regulations (45 CFR 147.131–147.133), and that is where much of the change was made.

The new rule provides that a nongovernment employer that has religious or moral objections to providing coverage for some or all forms of birth control can simply not provide the coverage. These rules also apply to colleges and universities providing student health insurance coverage. The religious exemption is open to any nongovernment employer, including both nonprofit and for-profit entities. The same holds true for the moral exemption, except only the religious exemption is available for publicly traded employers. An objecting employer need not file anything with the government, though affected plan participants need to be notified of mid-plan year coverage changes. Employers are free to pick and choose among contraceptives if they do decide to offer contraceptive coverage.

These regulations extend the exemption for objecting employers to objecting health insurance issuers, and to objecting individuals under which a health insurance issuer may offer a separate benefit package option to any individual who objects to coverage or payments for some or all contraceptive services based on the individual’s sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions.

Authority Under ACA
The majority opinion by Justice Thomas viewed the ACA as blank slate on what it required for women’s preventive health. The relevant ACA provision provides that, with respect to women, a group health plan and a health insurance issuer shall, at a minimum provide additional preventive care and screenings "as provided for" in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). At the time of the ACA’s enactment, these guidelines were not yet written.

The HRSA Guidelines were based on recommendations compiled by the Institute of Medicine (now called the National Academy of Medicine). The Guidelines included the contraceptive mandate, which required health plans to provide coverage for all contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures approved by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as related education and counseling.

The same day the Guidelines were issued in 2011, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (the Departments) issued interim final regulations requiring contraceptive coverage, with exceptions for churches. The Departments determined that it was appropriate that HRSA take into account the mandate’s effect on certain religious employers, and concluded that HRSA had the discretion to do so through the creation of an exemption. Ever since, the HRSA has been tasked (according to the majority opinion) with devising religious exemptions. The majority opinion concluded that ACA granted the HRSA broad authority to define preventive care and screenings, which implies that the HRSA also has broad power to create any religious and moral exemptions. Thus, if the HRSA changes its mind, there is nothing in the ACA to prevent it.

Justice Ginsburg’s dissent (joined by Justice Sotomayor) argued the legislative language HRSA in fact only delegates to the HRSA the task of compiling a list of services that should be provided. The ACA did not delegate the authority to determine who must provide the coverage for these services. Justice Kagan’s concurrence (joined by Justice Breyer) disagreed with the majority and dissent about the clarity of the ACA’s language on this, but from the beginning the Departments acted as if it were up to the HRSA to make this call. Under the Chevron doctrine, the interpretation of unclear legislation by the agency tasked with enforcement is owed due deference by the courts.

No “Open-Mindedness” Test
The majority opinion found no violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. The fact that the final rules made only minor alterations to the interim final regulations did not render the final rules procedurally invalid, because nothing in the record suggested that the Departments maintained an open mind during the post-promulgation process. The “open-mindedness” test has no basis in the APA, according to Justice Thomas.

The majority opinion also addressed the issue of calling the document containing the interim final rules "Interim Final Rules with Request for Comments" instead of "General Notice of Proposed Rulemaking." The request for comments readily satisfied the APA notice requirements, Justice Thomas ruled. Even assuming that the APA requires an agency to publish a document entitled "notice of proposed rulemaking," there was no prejudicial error here.

Justice Kagan’s opinion questioned whether the rule was not arbitrary and capricious. The rule went beyond what the Departments’ justification supported, raising doubts about whether the solution lacks a "rational connection" to the problem described. Few employers have expressed reservations about self-certification, and in any case the new exemption includes any employer (except publicly traded employers) with a moral objection whether it is religious or not.

Where’s RFRA?
The majority opinion stopped its authority analysis at holding that the ACA authorized the regulation, and stated that it did not need go into the requirements of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Justice Alito (joined by Justice Gorsuch) filed a concurrence taking the position that RFRA compels an exemption for the Little Sisters and any other employer with a similar objection to what has been called the accommodation to the contraceptive mandate.

The IRS has issued guidance to employers on the requirement to report the amount of qualified sick and family leave wages paid to employees under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Families First Act) ( P.L. 116-127). This reporting provides employees who are also self-employed with information necessary for properly claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits under the Families First Act.

The IRS has issued guidance to employers on the requirement to report the amount of qualified sick and family leave wages paid to employees under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Families First Act) ( P.L. 116-127). This reporting provides employees who are also self-employed with information necessary for properly claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits under the Families First Act.

Background
Under the Families First Act, many employers with fewer than 500 employees must provide paid leave to employees due to circumstances related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Certain employers must provide an employee with up to 80 hours of paid sick leave if the employee cannot work or telework because he or she:

1. is subject to a federal, state or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19;
2. has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;
3. is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis;
4. is caring for an individual who is subject to a federal, state, or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19, or has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;
5. is caring for a son or daughter if the child’s school or place of care has been closed, or the child’s care provider is unavailable, due to COVID-19 precautions; or
6. is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Labor.

The employee is entitled to paid sick leave at his or her regular pay rate (or if higher, the applicable federal, state, or local minimum wage), up to:

• $511 per day ($5,110 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work for reasons listed in (1), (2), or (3), above;
• $200 per day ($2,000 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work for reasons listed in (4), (5), or (6) above.

The Families First Act also amends the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to require employers to provide expanded paid family and medical leave to employees who cannot work or telework for reasons related to COVID-19. An employee can receive up to 10 weeks of paid family and medical leave at two-thirds the employee’s regular rate of pay, up to $200 per day ($10,000 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work because he or she is caring for a son or daughter whose school or place of care is closed, or whose child care provider is unavailable, for reasons related to COVID-19.

Eligible employers may receive a refundable payroll credit for required qualified sick leave wages or qualified family leave wages paid to an employee, plus allocable qualified health plan expenses. An equivalent credit is available to self-employed individuals carrying on a trade or business, if the self-employed individual would be entitled to receive paid leave if he or she were an employee of an employer (other than himself or herself). The refundable credits apply to qualified leave wages paid with respect to the period beginning on April 1, 2020, and ending on December 31, 2020.

Reporting Qualified Leave Wages
In addition to reporting qualified sick leave wages paid and qualified family leave wages paid in Boxes 1, 3 (up to the social security wage base), and 5 of Form W-2 (or, in the case of compensation subject to the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA), in Boxes 1 and 14 of Form W-2), employers must report to the employee the following types and amounts of the wages that were paid, with each amount separately reported either in Box 14 of Form W-2 or on a separate statement:

• the total amount of qualified sick leave wages paid for reasons (1), (2), or (3) above, labelled as "sick leave wages subject to the $511 per day limit" or in similar language;
• the total amount of qualified sick leave wages paid for reasons (4), (5), or (6) above, labelled as "sick leave wages subject to the $200 per day limit" or in similar language; and
• the total amount of qualified family leave wages paid, labelled as "emergency family leave wages" or in similar language.

If a separate statement is provided and the employee receives a paper Form W-2, the statement must be included with the Form W-2 provided to the employee. If the employee receives an electronic Form W-2, the statement must be provided in the same manner and at the same time as the Form W-2.

Self-Employed Individuals
Self-employed individuals who are claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits, and who are also eligible for qualified sick leave and qualified family leave wages as employees, must report the qualified leave wage amounts described above on Form 7202, Credits for Sick Leave and Family Leave for Certain Self-Employed Individuals, included with their income tax returns. They also must reduce (but not below zero) any qualified sick leave or qualified family leave equivalent credits by the amount of these qualified leave wages.

The IRS has issued guidance and temporary relief for required minimum distribution (RMD) changes in 2020. Distributions that would have been RMDs under old law are treated as eligible rollover distributions. The 60-day rollover period deadline for any 2020 RMDs already taken has been extended to August 31, 2020. Notice 2007-7, I.R.B. 2007-5, 395 is modified.

The IRS has issued guidance and temporary relief for required minimum distribution (RMD) changes in 2020. Distributions that would have been RMDs under old law are treated as eligible rollover distributions. The 60-day rollover period deadline for any 2020 RMDs already taken has been extended to August 31, 2020. Notice 2007-7, I.R.B. 2007-5, 395 is modified.

SECURE and CARES Acts
The new guidance addresses RMD issues arising from recent unexpected changes in the rules. The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act) ( P.L. 116-94), enacted at the end of 2019, changed the required beginning date for RMDs for individuals turning age 70-1/2 in 2020. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136), enacted in March 2020, waived the RMD requirements for 2020.

Plans, administrators, and individuals were taken by surprise. Some plans and participants treated distributions as RMDs even though they were not under new rules then in effect. The SECURE Act provided no relief. However, the CARES Act allowed plans and participants to treat would-be RMDs as eligible rollover distributions. Still, under the rules, individuals have 60 days to recontribute distributions, and can only do that once in a 12-month period. That left individuals who took early distributions twisting in the wind, not to mention people taking monthly RMD installments.

60-Day Deadline Extended
Under the new relief, any distribution already taken in 2020 that would have been an RMD under the old rules has a 60-day recontribution deadline of no earlier than August 31. For example, if someone took a distribution in January 2020 that would have been an RMD under the old rules (either sets of old rules), they have until August 31 to recontribute it to an eligible plan or IRA.

For an IRA owner or beneficiary who has already received a distribution that would have been an RMD in 2020 but for the 2020 RMD waiver under the CARES Act or the change in the required beginning date under the SECURE Act, the recipient may repay the distribution to the distributing IRA, even if the repayment is made more than 60 days after the distribution, provided the repayment is made no later than August 31, 2020. The repayment will be treated as a rollover, but will be subject to the one rollover per 12-month period limitation or the restriction on nonspousal beneficiary rollovers.

SECURE Act Relief
Distributions that were intended as RMDs but in fact are not due to the SECURE Act change in required beginning date are treated as eligible rollover distributions. RMDs do not have to satisfy rules regarding mandatory withholding, the option of a direct rollover, and notice of that right. Under this relief, individuals and plans can still treat these as eligible rollover distributions.

2020 Waiver Guidance
The IRS has clarified that the CARES Act relief applies for 2020 distributions that would have been RMDs, had it not been for the 2020 RMD waiver. These include distributions to a plan participant paid in 2020 (or paid in 2021 for the 2020 calendar year in the case of an employee who has a required beginning date of April 1, 2021) if the payments equal the amounts that would have been RMDs in (or for) 2020 had it not been for 2020 RMD waiver. They also include distributions that are one or more payments (that include the 2020 RMDs) in a series of substantially equal periodic payments made at least annually and expected to last for the participant’s life or life expectancy, the joint lives (or joint life expectancies) of the participant and the participant’s designated beneficiary, or for a period of at least 10 years.

For a plan participant with a required beginning date of April 1, 2021, distributions paid in 2021 that would have been an RMD for 2021 had it not been for the CARES Act are treated as eligible rollover distributions. However, a plan participant with a required beginning date of April 1, 2021, must still receive RMD for the 2021 calendar year by December 31, 2021. If the employee receives a distribution during 2021, that distribution is an RMD for the 2021 calendar year to the extent the total RMD for 2021 has not been satisfied even if the distribution is made on or before April 1, 2021, and accordingly, is not an eligible rollover distribution. However, to the extent the RMD for 2021 has been satisfied, subsequent amounts distributed in 2021 that would otherwise not be eligible rollover distributions may be rolled over.

Extended Deadlines Due to 2020 Waiver
If a plan permits an employee or beneficiary to elect whether the 5-year rule or the life expectancy rule applies in determining RMDs, then the deadline for making that election typically would be the end of calendar year following the calendar year of the employee’s death. For example, if a 50-year-old employee in a plan providing the election died in 2019 with his sister as his designated beneficiary, the plan provision would require the election by the end of 2020. However, that type of plan may be amended to permit the extension of the election deadline to the end of 2021.

The RMD waiver extends the time for making a direct rollover for a nonspouse designated beneficiary if the participant died in 2019. A special rule provides that if the 5-year rule applies to a benefit under a plan, the nonspouse designated beneficiary may determine the amount that is not eligible for rollover because it is an RMD using the life expectancy rule in the case of a distribution made prior to the end of the year following the year of death. This special rule is modified so that if the employee’s death occurred in 2019, the nonspouse designated beneficiary has until the end of 2021 to make the direct rollover and use the life expectancy rule.

Plan Amendments
The guidance provides a sample plan amendment for defined contribution plans that plan sponsors may adopt to implement waiver rules. Any plan amendment must be adopted no later than the last day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2022 (January 1, 2024, for governmental plans), and must reflect operation of the plan beginning with the effective date of the plan amendment. Timely adoption of the amendment must be shown by a written document signed and dated by the employer (including an adopting employer of a pre-approved plan). IRAs do not need to be amended.

The IRS has clarified and provided relief for mid-year amendments reducing safe harbor contributions. An updated safe harbor notice and an election opportunity must be provided even if the change is only for highly compensated employees. Coronavirus (COVID-19) relief applies if a plan amendment is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020. For nonelective contribution plans, the supplemental notice requirement is satisfied if provided no later than August 31, 2020, and the amendment that reduces or suspends contributions is adopted no later than the effective date of the reduction or suspension. Notice 2016-16, I.R.B., 2016-7, 318, is clarified.

The IRS has clarified and provided relief for mid-year amendments reducing safe harbor contributions. An updated safe harbor notice and an election opportunity must be provided even if the change is only for highly compensated employees. Coronavirus (COVID-19) relief applies if a plan amendment is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020. For nonelective contribution plans, the supplemental notice requirement is satisfied if provided no later than August 31, 2020, and the amendment that reduces or suspends contributions is adopted no later than the effective date of the reduction or suspension. Notice 2016-16, I.R.B., 2016-7, 318, is clarified.

Mid-Year Amendments
Safe harbor contributions for a plan year may be amended during the plan year to reduce or suspend future matching or nonelective contributions only under certain conditions. Among them are that the employer must either (1) be operating at an economic loss for the plan year, or (2) have included in the plan’s safe harbor notice for the plan year a statement that the plan may be amended during the plan year to reduce or suspend safe harbor contributions, and that the reduction or suspension will not apply earlier than 30 days after all eligible employees are provided notice of the reduction or suspension.

The reduction or suspension of safe harbor contributions may be effective no earlier than the later of the date the amendment is adopted or 30 days after eligible employees are provided in a supplemental notice. Eligible employees must be given a reasonable opportunity (including a reasonable period after receipt of the supplemental notice) prior to the reduction or suspension of safe harbor contributions to change their cash or deferred elections and, if applicable, their employee contribution elections.

Safe Harbor Contributions
Reductions or suspensions of contributions. If a plan amendment that reduces or suspends safe harbor matching or nonelective contributions during a plan year is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020, then the plan will not be treated as failing to satisfy the requirement that the employer either (1) is operating at an economic loss; or (2) has included in the plan’s safe harbor notice for the plan year a statement that (a) the plan may be amended during the plan year to reduce or suspend the safe harbor contributions and (b) the reduction or suspension will not apply until at least 30 days after all eligible employees are provided notice of the reduction or suspension.

Supplemental notice requirement. If a plan amendment that reduces or suspends safe harbor nonelective contributions during a plan year is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020, then the plan will not be treated as failing to satisfy the supplemental notice requirements merely because it is not provided to eligible employees at least 30 days before the reduction or suspension of safe harbor nonelective contributions is effective, provided that (1) the supplemental notice is provided to eligible employees no later than August 31, 2020, and (2) the plan amendment that reduces or suspends safe harbor nonelective contributions is adopted no later than the effective date of the reduction or suspension of safe harbor nonelective contributions.

There is no relief with respect to the timing of supplemental notices for a mid-year reduction or suspension of safe harbor matching contributions because matching contribution levels communicated to employees directly affect employee decisions regarding elective contributions (and, if applicable, employee contributions).

HCE Contributions
The new notice clarifies that an updated safe harbor notice and an election opportunity (as required by Notice 2016-16, I.R.B. 2016-7, 318) must be provided to highly compensated employees (HCEs) to whom the mid-year change applies, determined as of the date of issuance of the updated safe harbor notice. This rule applies even if the change only applies to HCEs.

The IRS amended final regulations with guidance on the Code Sec. 199A deduction for suspended losses and shareholders of regulated investment companies (RICs). The amendments address the treatment of suspended losses included in qualified business income (QBI), the deduction allowed to a shareholder in a regulated investment company (RIC), and additional rules related to trusts and estates. The IRS had previously issued final and proposed regulations addressing these issues (NPRM REG-134652-18)

The IRS amended final regulations with guidance on the Code Sec. 199A deduction for suspended losses and shareholders of regulated investment companies (RICs). The amendments address the treatment of suspended losses included in qualified business income (QBI), the deduction allowed to a shareholder in a regulated investment company (RIC), and additional rules related to trusts and estates. The IRS had previously issued final and proposed regulations addressing these issues ( NPRM REG-134652-18)

Background
Code Sec. 199A provides a deduction of up to 20 percent of qualified business income (QBI) from a U.S. trade or business operated as a sole proprietorship, or through a partnership, S corporation, trust, or estate. If the taxpayer’s taxable income exceeds the threshold amount in Code Sec. 199A(e)(2), the deduction may be limited. Statutory limitations are subject to phase-in rules. Code Sec. 199A also provides individuals and some trusts and estates a deduction of up to 20 percent of their combined qualified real estate investment trust (REIT) dividends and qualified publicly traded partnership (PTP) income.

461(l) Losses
Under Reg. §1.199A-3(b)(1)(iv), previously disallowed losses or deductions allowed in the tax year are generally taken into account for computing QBI, except to the extent the losses or deductions were disallowed, suspended, limited, or carried over from tax years ending before January 1, 2018. The final regulations amend Reg. §1.199A-3(b)(1)(iv)(A) to specifically reference excess business losses disallowed by Code Sec. 461(l) and treated as a net operating loss (NOL) carryover for the tax year for purposes of determining any NOL carryover in subsequent tax years. The IRS notes that the list of statutes in the regulation is not exhaustive

Phase-in Rules for SSTB Losses
The amendments also clarify how the phase-in rules apply when a taxpayer has a suspended or disallowed loss or deduction from a specified service trade or business (SSTB). If the individual’s taxable income is at or below the threshold amount in the year the loss or deduction is incurred, the entire disallowed loss or deduction is treated as QBI from a separate trade or business in the later tax year in which the loss is allowed. If the individual’s taxable income is within the phase-in range, only a percentage of the disallowed loss or deduction is taken into account in the later tax year. If the individual’s taxable income exceeds the phase-in range, the loss or deduction is not included in QBI.

Conduit Treatment
The final regulations provide conduit treatment for qualified REIT dividends earned by a RIC. Conduit treatment happens when a RIC treats dividends paid to a shareholder in the same or similar manner as the shareholder would treat the underlying item of income or gain if the shareholder realized it directly. The Treasury Department and IRS continue to consider comments on whether to provide conduit treatment for qualified PTP income, and for RIC income from an activity that would generate QBI if conducted by a partnership or an S corporation.

Separate Share Rule
The separate share applies for a trust or estate described in Code Sec. 663(c) with substantially separate and independent shares for multiple beneficiaries. Under the final regulations, the trust or estate will be treated as a single trust or estate for determining taxable income, net capital gain, net QBI, W-2 wages, unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA) of qualified property, qualified REIT dividends, and qualified PTP income for each trade or business of the trust or estate, and for computing the W-2 wage and UBIA of qualified property limitations.

Applicability
The amended regulations apply to tax years beginning 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. However, taxpayers may choose to apply the amendments before that date. Taxpayers who chose to rely on the proposed regulations issued in February 2019 may continue to do so until the date these amendments are published.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have released drafts of proposed partnership forms for tax year 2021 (the 2022 filing season). The proposed forms are intended to provide greater clarity for partners on how to compute their U.S. income tax liability for relevant international tax items, including claiming deductions and credits. The redesigned forms and instructions will also give useful guidance to partnerships on how to provide international tax information to their partners in a standardized format.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have released drafts of proposed partnership forms for tax year 2021 (the 2022 filing season). The proposed forms are intended to provide greater clarity for partners on how to compute their U.S. income tax liability for relevant international tax items, including claiming deductions and credits. The redesigned forms and instructions will also give useful guidance to partnerships on how to provide international tax information to their partners in a standardized format.

The draft forms are:

• Schedule K-2 (Form 1065), Partners’ Distributive Share Items—International, and Instructions for Schedule K-2.
• Schedule K-3 (Form 1065), Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc.—International ; and Instructions for Schedule K-3.

These proposed forms would apply to a partnership required to file Form 1065 only if it has "items of international tax relevance" (i.e., generally, foreign activities or foreign partners). The changes would not affect domestic partnerships with no international tax items to report.

Partner Reporting of International Items
Partners must report international tax information on their tax returns on several tax forms and schedules. They generally obtain this information from their partnerships, usually through narrative statements attached to one or more Schedules K-1 (Form 1065), Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc. Since partnerships compile these statements in a variety of formats, partners might have difficulties translating the statements onto their own returns.

To ease this burden, the Treasury and IRS state that the proposed changes would provide a standard format that offers greater clarity to both partnerships and their partners. This standard format is designed to better align the information that partnerships provide on the schedules with the tax forms used by partners, so that partners can more easily prepare their tax returns, and the IRS can more efficiently verify taxpayer compliance. It is intended that all information to be reported on the new schedules is already necessary for the partnership to provide to partners or is available to the partnership.

Draft Schedules K-2 and K-3
Any partnership that is required to file Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, and has items relevant to the determination of the U.S. tax or certain withholding tax or reporting obligations of its partners under the international provisions of the Code, will be required to complete the relevant parts of Schedule K-2 and Schedule K-3.

The proposed parts included in new Schedule K-2 (Form 1065) replace portions of existing Form 1065, Schedule K, lines 16(a) through 16(r). The proposed schedule provides for international tax information to be reported in a standardized manner. The partnership will attach Schedule K-2 to its Form 1065.

The proposed parts included in new Schedule K-3 (Form 1065) replace portions of Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), Part III, Boxes 16 and 20. The proposed schedule provides information to the partner generally in the format of the following forms that the partner might need to complete:

• Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return;
• Form 1040-NR, U.S. Nonresident Alien Income Tax Return;
• Form 1116, Foreign Tax Credit (Individual, Estate, or Trust;
• Form 1118, Foreign Tax Credit—Corporations;
• Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return;
• Form 1120-F, U.S. Income Tax Return of a Foreign Corporation;
• Form 4797, Sales of Business Property;
• Form 8949, Sales and Other Dispositions of Capital Assets;
• Form 8991, Tax on Base Erosion Payments of Taxpayers With Substantial Gross Receipts;
• Form 8992, U.S. Shareholder Calculation of Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI); and
• Form 8993, Section 250 Deduction for Foreign Derived Intangible Income (FDII) and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI).

The partnership will provide Schedule K-3 to its partners according to the timeline for providing Schedule K-1.

Comments Requested
The draft schedules and instructions have been released to allow partnerships and other stakeholders time to consider the proposed changes and provide comments that can be taken into account in finalizing the schedules and instructions. The Treasury and IRS will be actively engaged with stakeholders to solicit input on these proposed changes before the forms are finalized later in 2020.

Affected stakeholders can submit comments through September 14, 2020. Written comments should be sent to the following email address: lbi.passthrough.international.form.changes@irs.gov with the subject line: "International Form Changes."

For additional information and updates, see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/1065-form-changes.

Other Revisions
The Treasury and IRS plan similar revisions, as applicable, to Form 1120-S, U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation, and Form 8865, Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships. They welcome comments on similar changes to be made to these forms for the 2021 tax year.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations covering the Code Sec. 250 deduction for foreign-derived intangible income (FDII) and global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI). Proposed regulations were issued on March 6, 2019 (NPRM REG-104464-18). The final regulations maintain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations and provide guidance on computation of the deduction and the determination of FDII, including in the consolidated return context. Additionally, rules requiring the filing of Form 8993, Section 250 Deduction for Foreign-Derived Intangible Income and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income, are finalized.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations covering the Code Sec. 250 deduction for foreign-derived intangible income (FDII) and global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI). Proposed regulations were issued on March 6, 2019 (NPRM REG-104464-18). The final regulations maintain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations and provide guidance on computation of the deduction and the determination of FDII, including in the consolidated return context. Additionally, rules requiring the filing of Form 8993, Section 250 Deduction for Foreign-Derived Intangible Income and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income, are finalized.

Section 250 Deduction
The Code Sec. 250 deduction is available to domestic corporations for:

• a portion of profits attributable U.S. activities that serve foreign markets, and
• a portion of profits of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs).

The deduction is available with respect to a domestic corporation’s "excess return" or return in excess of fixed return on tangible assets, derived from serving foreign markets. FDII is the portion of the excess return derived from serving foreign markets directly from the United States. GILTI is the portion of the excess return derived through foreign affiliates. The deduction results in a lower effective U.S. tax rate on a U.S. corporation’s FDII and GILTI.

Documentation Requirements
The proposed regulations defined terms and provide specific documents that were required to establish that income was derived from serving foreign markets. Commentators found that the proposed regulations could present compliance burdens. Accordingly, the final regulations provide a more flexible approach than the specific documentation requirements.

For many types of sales and services, eligibility for the Code Sec. 250 deduction is subject to the general requirement under the Code that deductions must be supported by sufficient substantiation, including the use of available business records.

More specific substantiation requirements are required for:

• intangible property;
• sales of general property to resellers and manufacturers; and
• the provision of general services to recipients.

The requirements include either:

• a specific document;
• information from the recipient obtained or created in the ordinary course of a trade or business; or
• a taxpayer statement with corroborating evidence.

Taxpayers may choose a method of substantiation among the methods. The specific substantiation requirements do not apply to businesses with less than $25 million in gross receipts. The final regulations also eliminate references to the use of market research to establish foreign use.

The final regulations clarify how to establish foreign use for sales of digital content and how to establish a recipient’s location outside of the United States with respect to electronically supplied services and advertising services. The final regulations:

• evaluate the sale of a copyrighted article under the general property rules, rather than under the rules for foreign use of intangible property;
• provide new rules for establishing whether a sale of digital content is for foreign use;
• define "digital content" as a computer program or any other content in digital format; and
• provide that a sale of general property that primarily includes digital content is a foreign-derived deduction eligible income (FDDEI) sale if the end user downloads or accesses the content on a device located outside of the United States.

The final regulations add two subcategories of general services:

• a subcategory of general services for electronically supplied services; and
• a subcategory for advertising services.

In these cases, the location of the recipient is where the content is accessed or viewed.

Foreign Military Sales and Services
The proposed regulations provided special rules to cover U.S. Defense Contractors’ military sales of equipment and provision of services to the U.S. government that are subsequently sold or provided to a foreign government.

The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations, which treat sales and services provided to the U.S. government under the Arms Export Control Act as a sale or provision of services to the foreign government that is eligible for the deduction. The final regulations relax the substantiation requirements, so that the general substantiation requirements apply.

Ratio of FDDEI to DEI
A corporation’s FDII is defined as its deemed intangible income (DII) multiplied by the corporation’s foreign-derived ratio. This is the ratio of the corporation’s foreign-derived deduction eligible income (FDDEI) to its deduction eligible income (DEI).

The final regulations retain the rule that the domestic corporation must allocate expenses to its gross FDDEI to determine the numerator of the foreign-derived ratio.

Deduction for Individuals
The final regulations extend the Code Sec. 250 deduction with respect to GILTI, to individuals—including individual partners and individual S corporation shareholders—making the Code Sec. 962 election to be treated as a domestic corporation.

Additional Changes
Additional changes in the final regulations generally expand situations in which a transaction will be an FDDEI transaction, including:

• a property service may be a FDDEI service if it is provided with respect to property temporarily located in the United States;
• the definition of transportation services is revised to include freight forwarding services;
• the sale of a manufacturing method or process intangible to a foreign unrelated party is for foreign use based on the location of the manufacture rather that the end user;
• elimination of the rule that allowed the deduction for sales of international property only if certain time and use thresholds were met and the replacement of foreign use based on place of registration;
• clarification that general property includes physical commodities sold pursuant to derivative contracts, and that hedging sales impact a taxpayer’s income; and
• removal of the rule that the sale of an interest in a foreign branch is treated as giving rise to foreign branch income preventing the deduction.

Taxpayers can also use any reasonable method to determine the ordering of rules that limit deductions based on taxable income until additional rules are issued.

The IRS is calling on any taxpayers involved in syndicated conservation easement transactions who receives a settlement offer from the agency to accept it soon. The Service made this request in the wake of the Tax Court’s recent strike down of four additional abusive syndicated conservation easement transactions.

Settlement Offers
Time-limited settlement offers, which the IRS announced on June 25 ( IR-2020-130), are only being made to certain taxpayers with pending docketed Tax Court cases involving this type of abusive transaction. The IRS declared that these and other recent Tax Court decisions support the abusive nature of the underlying syndicated conservation easement deduction.

The four recent Tax Court decisions in question disallowed conservation easement deductions totaling nearly $21 million ( Village at Effingham, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-102, Dec. 61,715(M); Riverside Place, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-103, Dec. 61,716(M); Maple Landing, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-104, Dec. 61,717(M); Englewood Place, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-105, Dec. 61,718(M)).

Abusive Transactions
While recognizing the important role of legitimate conservation easement deductions in incentivizing land preservation for future generations, the IRS pointed out that abusive syndicated conservation easement transactions have been of concern for several years.

In listed syndicated conservation easement structures, promoters syndicate ownership interests in real property through partnerships, using promotional materials to suggest that prospective investors may be entitled to a share of a conservation easement contribution deduction that equals or exceeds two and one-half times the investment amount. The promoters obtain an appraisal that greatly inflates the value of the conservation easement, based on a fictional and unrealistic highest and best use of the property before it was encumbered with the easement. After the investors invest in the partnership, the partnership donates a conservation easement to a land trust. Investors in the partnership then claim a deduction based on an inflated value. According to the IRS, the investors typically claim charitable contribution deductions that grossly multiply their actual investment in the transaction and defy common sense.

The IRS is aware that some promoters of these abusive transactions have downplayed the significance of the string of recent court decisions holding in the government’s favor, arguing that their cases are somehow different or that those decisions might be reversed on appeal. These promoters ignore common sense and argue that the real dispute is about value, neglecting to explain how the reporting of short-term appreciation, often exceeding many multiples of reality, could possibly withstand judicial scrutiny. "Taxpayers should ignore this nonsense, take an objective look at their cases, and cut their losses," said IRS Chief Counsel Mike Desmond; "abusive transactions, like settlement offers, do not get better with time, and this is a good opportunity to get out," he added.

Taxpayers will experience a short delay to the start of the 2014 filing season, but passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 averted the possibility of an IRS shutdown in January. The budget agreement, however, did not include any tax provisions, and tax reform must find a new vehicle to move forward in Congress. Meanwhile, the IRS starts 2014 with a new leader, who promised to restore public trust in the agency after a troubled 2013.

2014 filing season

To end the October government shutdown, Congress passed a stop-gap funding bill to keep the IRS and other federal agencies open through mid-January 2014. Many tax professional groups warned that a government shutdown in January, even for a few days, would result in significant delays in tax return processing and refunds. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 authorizes funding for the federal government for two years.

The start of the 2014 filing season, however, will be slightly delayed because of the October shutdown. The IRS needs additional time to reprogram its return processing systems. The original start date of the 2014 filing season was January 21, 2014. In December, the IRS announced that the 2014 filing season will start on January 31. The IRS will not process any returns (electronic or paper) before January 31, 2014.

Most business filers can begin filing 2013 returns on January 13, the IRS reported. These include filers of Forms 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return; 1120S, U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation; and 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income. However, the January 13 start date does not apply to business owners that report their incomes on Form 1040. They must wait until January 31.

Tax legislation

Many tax reform proposals were introduced in Congress in 2013 but lawmakers deferred action until 2014. The leaders of the House and Senate tax writing committees have both said they want to move tax reform legislation in 2014 but the extent of any reform—and overall enthusiasm in Congress for reform—is unclear. Some lawmakers want a complete overhaul of the Tax Code (the last major tax reform was in 1986); others want to a more piece-meal approach. Lawmakers are also divided over whether reform should be revenue neutral or if reform should raise new revenues.

There had been some expectation that the budget agreement would include tax provisions, especially the so-called tax extenders. These are popular but temporary incentives, such as the higher education tuition deduction, state and local sales tax deduction, transit benefits parity, teacher’s classroom expense deduction, research tax credit, and more. The budget agreement negotiators decided not to include the extenders, which have now expired. Congress is likely to extend the incentives retroactive to January 1, 2014. If you have any questions about the status of an extender, please contact our office.

Looking ahead, President Obama is expected in his State of the Union Address in January and FY 2015 budget proposals to again call for a reduction in the corporate tax rate in exchange for eliminating some business tax incentives. The President made the same proposal last year but it failed to gain traction in Congress. The President is also likely to urge Congress to renew tax incentives that encourage employers to hire military veterans and individuals from economically-disadvantaged groups, consolidate some taxpayer penalties, extend enhanced small business expensing (and possibly bonus depreciation) and more. Our office will share details of the President’s proposals as they are released.

New IRS Commissioner

In May—after news broke of the IRS selecting applications from conservative groups for tax-exempt status for extra scrutiny—President Obama appointed Daniel Werfel to serve as Acting Commissioner. The President instructed Werfel to launch a top-down review of the agency. Since May, several senior IRS executives resigned or retired and Werfel appointed new top managers. Werfel also instituted cost-saving measures, such as eliminating employee conferences, curbing employee travel and not paying bonuses. Werfel, however, was never intended to serve permanently at the IRS and President Obama nominated John Koskinen to be Commissioner. The Senate approved Koskinen’s nomination in December.

Koskinen comes to the IRS after serving as the non-executive chair of Freddie Mac from 2008 to 2011. Previously, Koskinen was deputy mayor ofWashington,D.C.and also was a senior manager at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). At his confirmation hearing, Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chair Max Baucus, D-Montana, called Koskinen “the type of leader we need at the IRS.” SFC Ranking Member Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, reminded Koskinen that he has a “difficult job ahead” and “it is vital that the IRS maintain its credibility with taxpayers.” Koskinen told lawmakers that “trust is the most important asset the IRS has.”

Please contact our office if you have any questions about the filing season, tax legislation or IRS leadership changes.

Many higher-income taxpayers will be in for a big surprise when they finally tally up their 2013 tax bill before April 15th. The higher amount of taxes that may be owed will be the result of the combination of several factors, the cumulative effect of which will be significant for many. These factors include a higher income tax rate, a higher capital gains rate, a new net investment income tax, and a new Medicare surcharge on earned income, as well as a significantly reduced benefit from personal exemptions and itemized deductions for those in the higher income tax brackets.

Higher top income tax rate

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 made permanent for 2013 and beyond the lower Bush-era income tax rates for all, except for taxpayers with taxable income above $400,000 ($450,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly, $425,000 for heads of households). Income above these levels has now been taxed at a 39.6 percent rate rather than at the top 35 percent rate since January 1, 2013. Those amounts are adjusted for inflation after 2013 (for 2014, those threshold levels are $432,200, $457,600, and $406,750, respectively. Taxpayers with $150,000 of income above the threshold amounts, for example, must pay an additional $6,900 in tax in 2013 because of the additional tax rate of 4.6 percent).

Capital gains and dividends

The American Taxpayer Relief Act also raised the top rate for long-term capital gains and dividends to 20 percent, up from the Bush-era maximum 15 percent rate—again, applicable to all net long-term capital gains from transactions made on or after January 1, 2013. That top rate will apply to the extent that a taxpayer's income exceeds the thresholds set for the 39.6 percent rate ($400,000 for single filers; $450,000 for joint filers and $425,000 for heads of households). Especially applicable to those investors who have been riding the recent stock market rally, a jump in the rate from 15 percent to 20 percent represents a 33.33 percent tax increase.

Medicare Taxes

Set into motion on January 1, 2013 by the Affordable Care Act of 2010, higher-income taxpayers have been required to pay an additional 3.8 percent on net investment income as well as a 0.9 percent Additional Medicare Tax on earned income.

In both cases, the income threshold levels for being subject to these new taxes are considerably lower than the 39.6 percent bracket and 20 percent capital gain rates. The threshold amount is $200,000 in the case of a single individual, head of household (with qualifying person) and qualifying widow(er) with dependent child. The threshold amount is $250,000 in the case of a married couple filing jointly and $125,000 in the case of a married couple filing separately. For the 3.8 percent net investment income tax, the threshold is adjusted gross income (modified for certain foreign-based income). For the 0.9 percent  Additional Medicare Tax, the threshold is measured against compensation earned for the year (including self-employment income):

Net investment income tax. The 3.8 percent tax not only covers capital gains and dividends, but also passive-type income flowing from real estate, investments in businesses, and the like. The rules are complex, and many taxpayers will struggle with the extent to which income on their 2013 tax returns will be subject to the new net investment income tax. For income subject to this tax, the effective rate will increase to 23.8 percent on net capital gain and dividends and 43.4 percent on short-term capital gain and all other passive-type income.

Additional Medicare Tax. For tax years beginning after December 31, 2012, the 0.9 percent Additional Medicare Tax applies to employee compensation and self-employment income above the threshold amounts noted above. Covered wages for purposes of the Additional Medicare Tax include not only regular salary or payments for services rendered to someone self-employed, but also tips, commissions that are part of compensation, bonuses, reimbursements under nonaccountable plans, back pay awards, gifts by employers to employees and more.

An employer's withholding obligation for the Additional Medicare Tax applies only to the extent the employee's wages are in excess of $200,000 in a calendar year. For some dual-income couples with combined earned income above the $250,000 threshold but with no one earning more than $200,000, they may find themselves under withheld and subject to an estimated tax penalty as a result. Couples should remember that to prevent a reoccurrence in the future, an employee may request additional income tax withholding, which will be applied against all taxes shown on the individual's return, including any liability for the Additional Medical Tax.

Itemized Deductions Limitation

The American Taxpayer Relief Act officially the “Pease” limitation on itemized deductions. The new thresholds, first applied in 2013, are $300,000 for married couples and surviving spouses; $275,000 for heads of households; $250,000 for unmarried taxpayers; and $150,000 for married taxpayers filing separately.

The Pease limitation reduces the total amount of a higher-income taxpayer's otherwise allowable itemized deductions by three percent of the amount by which the taxpayer's adjusted gross income exceeds this applicable threshold. The amount of itemized deductions may be reduced up to 80 percent under this formula. Certain items, such as medical expenses, investment interest, and casualty, theft or wagering losses, are excluded.

Personal Exemption Phaseout

The American Taxpayer Relief Act also revived the personal exemption phaseout rules, at the same levels of adjusted gross income revived for the Pease limitation. Under the phaseout, the total amount of exemptions that may be claimed by a taxpayer is reduced by two percent for each $2,500, or portion thereof (two percent for each $1,250 for married couples filing separate returns) by which the taxpayer's adjusted gross income exceeds the applicable threshold level. At the full phase out level, therefore, a family with four personal exemptions in 2013 will lose $15,600 in exemptions, creating $6,178 in additional tax at the 39.6 percent bracket.

Federal Estate and Gift Taxes

One bright spot for higher-income taxpayers is the change that took place starting in 2013 directly applicable to estate planning strategies. The American Taxpayer Relief Act permanently provided for a maximum federal estate tax rate of 40 percent with an annual inflation-adjusted $5 million exclusion for estates of decedents dying after December 31, 2012. Couples can combine exclusions and effectively exempt $10 million from estate tax (for 2013, the inflation-adjusted level is $10.5 million, rising to $10.68 million in 2014).

If you would like a further assessment of how the new, “higher-income taxes” will impact what you owe for 2013 this coming April 15, or if you would like to start now to implement a plan to minimize these taxes in 2014, please do not hesitate to contact this office. 

Good recordkeeping is essential for individuals and businesses before, during, and after the upcoming tax filing season.

Good recordkeeping is essential for individuals and businesses before, during, and after the upcoming tax filing season.

First, the law actually requires taxpayers to retain certain records for a specified number of years, for example tax returns or employment tax records (for employers).

Second, good recordkeeping is essential for taxpayers while preparing their tax returns. The Tax Code frequently requires taxpayers to substantiate their income and claims for deductions and credits by providing records of various profits, expenses and transactions.

Third, if a taxpayer is ever audited by the IRS, good recordkeeping can facilitate what could be a long and invasive process, and it can often mean the difference between a no change and a hefty adjustment.

Finally, business taxpayers should maintain good records that will enable them to track the trajectory of their success over the years.

Here you will find a sample list of various types of records it would be wise to retain for tax and other purposes (not an exhaustive list; see this office for further customization to your particular situation):

Individuals

Filing status:

Marriage licenses or divorce decrees – Among other things, such records are important for determining filing status.

Determining/Substantiating income:

State and federal income tax returns – Tax records should be retained for at least three years, the length of the statute of limitations for audits and amending returns. However, in cases where the IRS determines a substantial understatement of tax or fraud, the statute of limitations is longer or can remain open indefinitely.

Paystubs, Forms W-2 and 1099, Pension Statements, Social Security Statements – These statements are essential for taxpayers determining their earned income on their tax returns. Taxpayers should also cross reference their wage and income reports with their final pay stubs to verify that their employer has reported the correct amount of income to the IRS.

Tip diary or other daily tip record – Taxpayers that receive some of their income from tips should keep a daily record of their tip income. Under the best circumstances, taxpayers would have already accurately reported their tip income to their employers, who would then report that amount to the IRS. However, mistakes can occur, and good recordkeeping can eliminate confusion when tax season arrives.

Military records – Some members of the military are exempt from state and/or federal tax; combat pay is exempt from taxation, as are veteran’s benefits. (In many cases, a record of military service is necessary to obtain veteran’s benefits in the first place.)

Copies of real estate purchase documents – Up to $500,000 of gain from the sale of a personal residence may be excludable from income (generally up to $250,000 if you are single). But if you own a home that sold for an amount that produces a greater amount of gain, or if you own real estate that is not used as your personal residence, you will need these records to prove your tax basis in your home; the greater your basis, the lower the amount of gain that must be recognized.

Individual Retirement Account (IRA) records – Funds contributed to Roth IRAs and traditional IRAs and the earnings thereon receive different tax treatments upon distribution, depending in part on when the distribution was made, what amount of the contributions were tax deferred when made, and other factors that make good recordkeeping desirable.

Investment purchase confirmation records – Long-term capital gains receive more favorable tax treatment than short-term capital gains. In addition, basis (generally the cost of certain investments when purchased) can be subtracted from gain from any sale. For these reasons, taxpayers should keep records of their investment purchase confirmations.

Substantiating deductions:

Acknowledgments of charitable donations – Cash contributions to charity cannot be deducted without a bank record, receipt, or other means. Charitable contributions of $250 or more must be substantiated by a contemporaneous written acknowledgment from the qualified organization that also meets the IRS requirements.

Cash payments of alimony – Payments of alimony may be deductible from the gross income of the paying spouse . . . if the spouse can substantiate the payments and certain other criteria are met.

Medical records – Disabled taxpayers under the age of 65 should keep a written statement from a qualified physician certifying they were totally disabled on the date of retirement.

Records of medical expenses – Certain unreimbursed medical expenses in excess of 10 percent of adjusted gross income may be deductible. Caution: a pending tax-reform proposal may change the deductibility of these expenses.

Mortgage statements and mortgage insurance – Mortgage interest and real estate taxes have generally deductible for taxpayers who itemize rather than claim the standard deduction. Caution: a pending tax-reform proposal may change the deductibility of these expenses.

Receipts for any improvements to real estate – Part or all of the expense of certain energy efficient real estate improvements can qualify taxpayers for one or more tax credits.

Keeping so many records can be tedious, but come tax-filing season it can result in large tax savings. And in the case of an audit, evidence of good recordkeeping can get you off to a good start with the IRS examiner handling the case, can save time, and can also save money. For more information on recordkeeping for individuals, please contact our offices.

Businesses

Taxpayers are required by law to keep permanent books of account or records that sufficiently substantiate the amount of gross income, deductions, credits and other amounts reported and claimed on any their tax returns and information returns.

Although, neither the Tax Code nor its regulations specify exactly what kinds of records satisfy the record-keeping requirements, here are a few suggestions:

State and federal income tax returns – These and any supporting documents should be kept for at least the period of limitations for each return. As with individual taxpayers, the limitations period for business tax returns may be extended in the event of a substantial understatement or fraud.

Employment taxes – The Tax Code requires employers to keep all records of employment taxes for at least four years after filing for the 4th quarter for the year. Generally these records would include wage payments and other payroll-related records, the amount of employment taxes withheld, reported tip income, identification information for employees and other payees; employees’ dates of employment; income tax withholding allowance certificates (Forms W-4, for example), fringe benefit payments, and more.

Business income – These would go toward substantiating income, and could include cash register tapes, bank deposit slips, a cash receipts journal, annual financial statements, Forms 1099, and more.

Inventory costs – Businesses should keep records of inventory purchases. For example, if an electronics company purchases a certain number of widgets for resale or a manufacturer purchases a certain number of ball bearings for use in the production of industrial equipment that it manufactures and sells. The costs of these goods, parts, or other materials can be deducted from sales income to significantly reduce tax liability.

Business expenses – Ordinary and necessary expenses for carrying on business, such as the cost of rental office space, are also generally deductible from business income. Such expenses can be substantiated through bank statements, canceled checks, credit card receipts or other such records. The cost of making certain improvements to a business, such as through buying equipment or renovating property, can also be deductible.

Electronic back-up

Paper records can take up a great deal of storage space, and they are also vulnerable to destruction in fires, floods, earthquakes, or other natural phenomena. Because records are required to substantiate most income, deductions, property values and more—even when they no longer exist—taxpayers (and especially business taxpayers) should digitize their records on an electronic storage system and keep a back-up copy in a secure location.

Business taxation can be extremely complicated, and the requirements for recordkeeping vary greatly depending on the size of the business, the form of organization chosen, and the type of industry in which the business operates. For more details on your specific situation, please call our offices.

Taxpayers who use their automobiles for business or the production of income can deduct their actual expenses for use of an automobile (including the use of vans, pickups, and panel trucks) that the taxpayer owns or leases. Deductible expenses include parking fees, tolls, taxes, depreciation, repairs and maintenance, tires, gas, oil, insurance and registration.

Standard rate for business

Employees and self-employed individuals can use the optional business standard mileage rate, instead of tracking actual costs for depreciation, repairs and maintenance, tires, gas, insurance, oil and registration. Vehicle costs based on the standard rate are determined by multiplying the number of business miles traveled during the year by the rate. In addition to taking the standard rate, a taxpayer can deduct certain other costs as separate items, including as parking, tolls, interest on the purchase of the automobile, and state and local personal property taxes.

For 2014, the standard mileage rate for business travel is 56 cents per mile, a slight drop from the 2013 rate of 56.5 cents per mile. This allowance includes depreciation of 22 cents per mile for 2014. A taxpayer using the standard mileage rate must reduce the basis of the vehicle by the depreciation expenses included in the mileage rate.

(While the use of actual expenses may result in a greater deduction than using the standard rate, this must be balanced against the added recordkeeping and substantiation burdens.)

Substantiation and limitations

A taxpayer using the standard mileage rate does not have to substantiate the expense amounts covered by the rate. However, the taxpayer must properly substantiate other travel elements, such as time, place and purpose of the trip. Travel expenses must be substantiated either by adequate records or by sufficient evidence corroborating the taxpayer's own statement. To meet the adequate records requirement, a taxpayer should maintain an account book, diary or similar statement and documentary evidence to establish each element of the expense.

A taxpayer cannot use the standard mileage rate if it operates five or more vehicles at the same time, if it claimed a Code Sec. 179 expensing deduction for the vehicle, or if it claimed depreciation other than straight-line depreciation.

Other standard mileage rates

The IRS also provides standard mileage rates for medical and moving expenses. For 2014, the rate is 23.5 cents per mile (down from 24 cents for 2013). The standard rate for charitable expenses is set by statute and remains at 14 cents per mile. The various standard mileage rates for 2014 apply to miles driven on or after January 1, 2014.

The definitive arrival of the New Year does not spell doom for all tax savings opportunities for 2013. A few options remain to taxpayers:

IRAs

Taxpayers have until April 15, 2014, to make tax-deferred contributions to a traditional individual retirement account (IRA). The amount any one taxpayer may contribute to an IRA is limited to $5,500 per taxpayer ($6,500 for taxpayers age 50 or older).

This amount begins to phase out after the taxpayer has adjusted gross income (AGI) over a certain amount ($59,000 for single and head of household filers; $95,000 for married filers). The phase out is complete once the taxpayer’s AGI exceeds $69,000 (single and head of household filers) or $115,000 (married filers).

If the taxpayer has already contributed to an IRA for 2013 (including a Roth IRA), the allowed $5,500 contribution is reduced by the amount of those previous contributions.

HSAs

Taxpayers covered under a high-deductible health plan (HDHP) also have until April 15, 2014, to make tax-deferred contributions to a health savings account (HSA). An HSA is a tax-exempt trust or custodial account established for the purpose of paying the beneficiary’s qualified medical expenses.

Estimated tax

Taxpayers who realize they should have been making estimated payments of tax throughout the year can avoid penalties for the fourth quarter of 2013 by making an estimated tax payment on or before January 15, 2014.

Other notable tax deadlines, other than the looming April 15, 2014 deadline for individual returns, include:

March 15: Taxpayers who contributed funds during 2013 to an employer-sponsored cafeteria plan through a flexible spending arrangement (FSA) have until March 15, 2014 to use them on any qualified medical expenses. Generally taxpayers must use all funds contributed to an FSA before the end of the year, unless their employer has amended the cafeteria plan to allow a grace period up until March 15. Taxpayers who are unsure of whether or not their flexible spending arrangement provides this grace period should contact their employer.

April 1: Taxpayers that have traditional IRAs are required to start taking minimum distributions from their IRAs in the year in which they turn age 70½. These are called required minimum distributions (RMDs), and they are calculated based on the account holder’s life expectancy. RMDs are required for traditional IRAs, but not Roth IRAs.

Taxpayers who just turned 70½ during 2013 may delay the first payment until April 1, 2014. However, for all years thereafter, the taxpayer must take the RMD by December 31 of the tax year. This means that a taxpayer who delays his or her first RMD payment until April 1, 2014, will be required to report two RMDs in his or her 2014 income.

Account owners who do no withdraw the full RMD amount by the deadline will be liable for tax at the rate of 50 percent on the amount not withdrawn

For more information on the upcoming tax return filing season, please contact our offices. 

Tax season is scheduled to begin shortly and, as in past years, there are some possible glitches to be mindful of. Already, the IRS has alerted taxpayers that the start of filing season will be delayed. Late tax legislation, although unlikely, could result in a further delay. Some new requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have been waived for 2014, but others have not. The IRS also is facing the prospect of another government shutdown in January.

Tax season is scheduled to begin shortly and, as in past years, there are some possible glitches to be mindful of. Already, the IRS has alerted taxpayers that the start of filing season will be delayed. Late tax legislation, although unlikely, could result in a further delay. Some new requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have been waived for 2014, but others have not. The IRS also is facing the prospect of another government shutdown in January.

Filing season

In recent years, the IRS has had to delay the start of the filing season to reprogram its return processing systems for changes in the tax laws. The 2014 filing season will also be delayed but not, as of today, because of new tax laws. The IRS operated with minimal staffing during the 16-day government shutdown in October and fell behind in its scheduled maintenance and programming of its return processing systems because employees were furloughed. At this time, the IRS expects the 2014 filing season to be delayed for possibly two weeks.

Before the shutdown, the IRS had anticipated opening the 2014 filing season on January 21, 2014. With a one- to two-week delay, the IRS would start accepting and processing returns no earlier than January 28, 2014 and no later than February 4, 2014. Individuals who file early in anticipation of receiving a refund will likely see their refunds delayed. The IRS is expected to make a final determination on the start date of the 2014 filing season in mid-December. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

Taxpayers are also waiting on some important final forms for the 2014 filing season, including Form 8960, Net Investment Income Tax. The Affordable Care Act created the new 3.8 tax on qualified net investment income, effective January 1, 2013. Additionally, the IRS has indicated that more guidance will be available for married same-sex couples. Since publication of the IRS's initial guidance, questions have surfaced concerning employee benefits, return filing and other issues affecting married same-sex couples and domestic partners (whom the IRS does not treat as married). Late-year guidance on either the 3.8 percent net investment income tax or same-sex tax issues may require last-minute changes in year-end tax strategies.

Another shutdown possible

The IRS is currently operating under a stop-gap funding measure, which ended the government shutdown in October. Funding under the stop-gap measure is scheduled to lapse after January 15, 2014. A House-Senate budget conference committee is attempting to reconcile competing fiscal year (FY) 2014 budget bills. So far, lawmakers appear to have made little progress.

A mid-January shutdown could further delay the start of the filing season. In a November 18 letter to IRS Acting Commissioner Daniel Werfel, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) expressed concern that another government shutdown would result in a huge strain on taxpayers and tax professionals trying to timely file and report their income taxes by April 15. "The IRS keeping more essential positions working during January would help make the already delayed filing season operate as smoothly as possible," the AICPA told Werfel. The AICPA also recommended that the Taxpayer Advocate Service, which closed during the October shutdown, remain open in the event of another lapse in appropriations.

Tax legislation

Although many tax bills have been introduced in Congress, 2013 is likely to end without lawmakers tackling comprehensive tax reform. The House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have both prepared discussion drafts on tax reform, covering a host of tax issues. One possible reason for the lack of movement of tax reform appears to be lukewarm interest, at best, from the House and Senate leaders. This could change in 2014 but it is too early to make any predictions.

One path for tax reform could be the House-Senate budget conference committee. However, as mentioned, the committee has not yet produced any concrete proposals. Several lawmakers have recommended that the committee strike a deal to lower corporate tax rates in exchange for businesses giving up unspecified tax breaks. Many Republicans want to keep scheduled across-the-board spending cuts in place for 2014 and beyond; many Democrats want to replace the spending cuts with new revenue raisers. The conference committee has a mid-December deadline to reach an agreement.

A package of so-called tax extenders-popular but temporary tax incentives-could move before year-end but more likely will be taken up by Congress early next year. Unlike last year, the expiring incentives do not affect 2013 returns filed in 2014. Eligible taxpayers will be able to claim the state and local sales tax deduction, the higher education tuition deduction, the teachers' classroom expense deduction, home energy tax breaks, and many others on their 2013 returns. If you have any questions about the expiring incentives, please contact our office.

Affordable Care Act

Starting January 1, 2014, the Affordable Care Act requires individuals to carry minimum essential health insurance (unless they are exempt) or make a shared responsibility payment. Tax credits and cost-sharing also kick-in next year. At this time, it appears unlikely that the Obama administration will delay the individual mandate. The employer mandate, however, is delayed. Employer reporting (and reporting by some insurers) will not apply until 2015, but is optional for 2014. Generally, employer reporting applies to employers with at least 50 full-time employees on business days during the preceding calendar year.

November was dominated by news of technical troubles for the online Affordable Care Act Marketplaces and the cancellation of some individual insurance policies that did not meet new standards. The White House has made getting the online Marketplaces running at 100 percent a priority and also gave states the option of allowing individuals to re-enroll in coverage that would otherwise be terminated. The fix is temporary and individuals will need to find alternative coverage for 2015 and beyond. Small businesses also may have received cancellation notices and should be exploring alternative coverage.

If you have any questions about year-end tax developments, please contact our office.

Health flexible spending arrangements (health FSAs) are popular savings vehicles for medical expenses, but their use has been held back by a strict use-or-lose rule. The IRS recently announced a significant change to encourage more employers to offer health FSAs and boost enrollment. At the plan sponsor's option, employees participating in health FSAs will be able to carry over, instead of forfeiting, up to $500 of unused funds remaining at year-end.

Health flexible spending arrangements (health FSAs) are popular savings vehicles for medical expenses, but their use has been held back by a strict use-or-lose rule. The IRS recently announced a significant change to encourage more employers to offer health FSAs and boost enrollment. At the plan sponsor's option, employees participating in health FSAs will be able to carry over, instead of forfeiting, up to $500 of unused funds remaining at year-end.

Health expenses

Health FSAs are designed to reimburse participants for certain health care expenditures, typically expenses that qualify for the medical and dental expense deduction. Medical supplies, such as eye glasses and bandages, are usually treated as qualified expenses. However, nonprescription medicines (other than insulin) are not considered qualified medical expenses.

Health FSAs are often funded through voluntary salary reduction agreements with the participant's employer under a cafeteria plan. In that case, they are very taxpayer-friendly because no federal employment or federal income taxes are deducted from the employee's contribution. The employer may also contribute to a health FSA. However, there are special rules which govern employer contributions.

Typically, participants designate at the beginning of the year the amount they want to contribute to their health FSA and these amounts are deducted from their pay. For 2014, an employee's salary reduction contributions cannot exceed $2,500. The $2,500 cap is very important because cafeteria plans that do not limit health FSA contributions to $2,500 are not treated as cafeteria plans, and all benefits offered under the plan are included in the participants' gross income.

Use-or-lose rule

As mentioned, the use-or-lose rule is a drawback to health FSAs. Unused amounts remaining in the health FSA at year-end are forfeited. Employers are not allowed to refund any unused funds in a health FSA. Critics of the use-or-lose rule argue that it has discouraged participation in health FSAs because many employees do not want to risk forfeiting unused funds. Often, participants have to scramble at year-end to use their health FSA dollars

Grace period option

A few years ago, the IRS modified the use-or-lose rule. The IRS allowed cafeteria plans to adopt a grace period. Participants can use amounts remaining in a health FSA at year-end for up to an additional two months and 15 days. This grace period is optional. Employers are not required to offer the grace period, although many do.

Carryover option

At its option, an employer may now amend its cafeteria plan to provide for the carryover to the immediately following year of up to $500 of any amount remaining unused as of the end of the year in a health FSA. The carryover of up to $500 may be used to pay or reimburse qualified expenses under the health FSA incurred during the entire plan year to which it is carried over. Additionally, the carryover does not count against or otherwise affect the salary reduction limit ($2,500 for 2014) for health FSAs. However, the new rules do not allow participants to cash out unused health FSA amounts or convert them to other types of benefits.

The maximum carryover amount is $500. An employer can choose to offer a $0 carryover, a $500 carryover or any amount in between. As we discussed, the carryover is optional. Employers can choose not to offer any carryover.

Employers cannot offer both the grace period and the carryover. It is a choice of either the grace period or the carryover....or neither. The employer and not the participant decides. In regulations, the IRS described how employers can amend their cafeteria plans to provide for the carryover and how they can, if they choose, replace the grace period with the carryover.

Let's take a look at an example: Jacob participates in a health FSA under his employer's cafeteria plan. At year-end, Jacob has $255 remaining in his health FSA. Jacob's employer never offered a grace period but opted to allow participants to carry over up to $300 of unused health FSA dollars. Jacob can carry over all of his $255 in unused health FSA dollars.

If you have any questions about the new carryover option or health FSAs, please contact our office.

Notice 2013-71

Taxpayers generally prefer to accelerate deductions to reduce their current year income and taxes. In some situations, the tax code's accounting rules allow an accrual-basis employer to deduct a year-end employee bonus in the current year, even though the bonus will not be paid until the following year. A recent IRS Chief Counsel memorandum (FAA 20134301F) highlights some of the pitfalls that can affect when bonus compensation is deductible.

Taxpayers generally prefer to accelerate deductions to reduce their current year income and taxes. In some situations, the tax code's accounting rules allow an accrual-basis employer to deduct a year-end employee bonus in the current year, even though the bonus will not be paid until the following year. A recent IRS Chief Counsel memorandum (FAA 20134301F) highlights some of the pitfalls that can affect when bonus compensation is deductible.

Accrual Method

Under the accrual-method of accounting (in contrast to the cash-method of accounting), a liability is incurred, and can be deducted, in the year in which:

1. All the events have occurred that establish the fact of the liability;
2. The amount of the liability can be determined with reasonable accuracy; and
3. Economic performance has occurred.

The first factor, the all-events test, is met when the event fixing the liability occurs and payment is unconditionally due. Although an expense may be deductible before it is payable, liability must be firmly established. The "fact of liability" depends on whether legal rights or obligations exist as of the close of the year, not the probability that the rights will arise in the future.

Bonus Plans

An employer may establish an arrangement or plan that will pay a bonus to its employees in the succeeding year, based on an evaluation of current year performance. Performance could be determined by objective factors, such as numerical goals set for the company or the employee. These bonuses may be deductible in the earlier year even though the employee, who must figure taxes on the cash method, won't need to recognize the income until it is paid. Or performance may be based on more subjective factors, such as an individual performance appraisal or the employer's discretion. These bonuses may be deductible in the later year. The requirements for awarding the bonus must be scrutinized, to determine when the liability becomes certain.

Is the liability deductible?

The IRS has stated that a bonus can be deducted in the current year if, under a bonus plan, the employee is notified in the current year the employee will receive a bonus, even though the bonus is not calculated or paid until the following year. An employer's bonus liability that is ascertainable by a fixed standard, such as a percentage of profits at the close of the year, accrues and is deductible in the current year even though the computations are not made until the following year.

A bonus is not deductible prior to payment if an employee must remain employed until the time of payment, and if a forfeited bonus reverts to the employer. However, even if an employee must be employed until paid, the IRS has ruled that a bonus is deductible under a pooled arrangement providing that any forfeited bonuses are reallocated to the employees as a group, where the minimum amount payable to the group is determinable through a fixed formula at the end of the year or by board action before the end of the year.

Employers may be denied a deduction in the current year if there are uncertainties or conditions on payment. As stated above, a condition that the employee must remain with the company until payment prevents accrual before the payment. A deduction is not available if the payment is subject to significant contingencies involving corporate affairs, such as approval by the board, or a requirement that the company attain a particular cash position. If there is no set formula, and bonuses will not be determined until after the close of the year, the bonuses do not accrue until the later year.

In the IRS memorandum, Chief Counsel determined that a bonus could not be accrued in the earlier year in the following situations:

1. The employer retained the right to unilaterally modify or eliminate the bonus plan or the bonuses themselves at any time, in its discretion. The employer had no legal obligation to pay the bonus until it was actually paid.
2. The plan requires a committee of the board of directors to act in the following year to approve the bonus computation and the payment of bonuses. There is no legal obligation because the committee must approve the bonuses, and that approval is not automatic.
3. The bonus depends not only on objective formulas but also on the employee's individual performance score, based on appraisals that are not performed until after the end of the year.

There is a tension between the employer's desire to accelerate the deduction and its desire to retain maximum control over the payment of bonuses. An employer that wants to deduct the bonuses in an earlier year must be willing to relinquish some of its discretion to determine the bonus.

Whether for a day, a week or longer, many of the costs associated with business trips may be tax-deductible. The tax code includes a myriad of rules designed to prevent abuses of tax-deductible business travel. One concern is that taxpayers will disguise personal trips as business trips. However, there are times when taxpayers can include some personal activities along with business travel and not run afoul of the IRS.

Business travel

You are considered “traveling away from home” for tax purposes if your duties require you to be away from the general area of your home for a period substantially longer than an ordinary day's work, and you need sleep or rest to meet the demands of work while away. Taxpayers who travel on business may deduct travel expenses if they are not otherwise lavish or extravagant. Business travel expenses include the costs of getting to and from the business destination and any business-related expenses at that destination.

Deductible travel expenses while away from home include, but are not limited to, the costs of:

• Travel by airplane, train, bus, or car to/from the business destination.
• Fares for taxis or other types of transportation between the airport or train station and lodging, the lodging location and the work location, and from one customer to another, or from one place of business to another.
• Meals and lodging.
• Tips for services related to any of these expenses.
• Dry cleaning and laundry.
• Business calls while on the business trip.
• Other similar ordinary and necessary expenses related to business travel.

Business mixed with personal travel

Travel that is primarily for personal reasons, such as a vacation, is a nondeductible personal expense. However, taxpayers often mix personal travel with business travel. In many cases, business travelers may able to engage in some non-business activities and not lose all of the tax benefits associated with business travel.

The primary purpose of a trip is determined by looking at the facts and circumstances of each case. An important factor is the amount of time you spent on personal activities during the trip as compared to the amount of time spent on activities directly relating to business.

Let’s look at an example. Amanda, a self-employed architect, resides in Seattle. Amanda travels on business to Denver. Her business trip lasts six days. Before departing for home, Amanda travels to Colorado Springs to visit her son, Jeffrey. Amanda’s total expenses are $1,800 for the nine days that she was away from home. If Amanda had not stopped in Colorado Springs, her trip would have been gone only six days and the total cost would have been $1,200. According to past IRS precedent, Amanda can deduct $1,200 for the trip, including the cost of round-trip transportation to and from Denver.

Weekend stayovers

Business travel often concludes on a Friday but it may be more economical to stay over Saturday night and take advantage of a lower travel fare. Generally, the costs of the weekend stayover are deductible as long as they are reasonable. Staying over a Saturday night is one way to add some personal time to a business trip.

Foreign travel

The rules for foreign travel are particularly complex.  The amount of deductible travel expenses for foreign travel is linked to how much of the trip was business related.  Generally, an individual can deduct all of his or her travel expenses of getting to and from the business destination if the trip is entirely for business.

In certain cases, foreign travel is considered entirely for business even if the taxpayer did not spend his or her entire time on business activities. For example, a foreign business trip is considered entirely for business if the taxpayer was outside the U.S. for more than one week and he or she spent less than 25 percent of the total time outside the U.S. on non-business activities. Other exceptions exist for business travel outside the U.S. for less than one week and in cases where the employee did not have substantial control in planning the trip.

Foreign conventions are especially difficult, but no impossible, to write off depending upon the circumstances. The taxpayer may deduct expenses incurred in attending foreign convention seminar or similar meeting only if it is directly related to active conduct of trade or business and if it is as reasonable to be held outside North American area as within North American area.

Tax home

To determine if an individual is traveling away from home on business, the first step is to determine the location of the taxpayer’s tax home. A taxpayer’s tax home is generally his or her regular place of business, regardless of where he or she maintains his or her family home. An individual may not have a regular or main place of business. In these cases, the individual’s tax home would generally be the place where he or she regularly lives.  The duration of an assignment is also a factor. If an assignment or job away from the individual’s main place of work is temporary, his or her tax home does not change. Generally, a temporary assignment is one that lasts less than one year.

The distinction between tax home and family home is important, among other reasons, to determine if certain deductions are allowed. Here’s an example.

Alec’s family home is in Tucson, where he works for ABC Co. 14 weeks a year.  Alec spends the remaining 38 weeks of the year working for ABC Co. in San Diego. Alec has maintained this work schedule for the past three years. While in San Diego, Alec resides in a hotel and takes most of his meals at restaurants.  San Diego would be treated as Alec’s tax home because he spends most of his time there. Consequently, Alec would not be able to deduct the costs of lodging and meals in San Diego.

Accountable and nonaccountable plans

Many employees are reimbursed by their employer for business travel expenses. Depending on the type of plan the employer has, the reimbursement for business travel may or may not be taxable. There are two types of plans: accountable plans and nonaccountable plans.

An accountable plan is not taxable to the employee. Amounts paid under an accountable plan are not wages and are not subject to income tax withholding and federal employment taxes. Accountable plans have a number of requirements:

• There must be a business connection to the expenditure. The expense must be a deductible business expense incurred in connection with services performed as an employee. If not reimbursed by the employer, the expense would be deductible by the employee on his or her individual income tax return.

• There must be adequate accounting by the recipient within a reasonable period of time. Employees must verify the date, time, place, amount and the business purpose of the expenses.

• Excess reimbursements or advances must be returned within a reasonable period of time.

Amounts paid under a nonaccountable plan are taxable to employees and are subject to all employment taxes and withholding.  A plan may be labeled an accountable plan but if it fails to qualify, the IRS treats it as a nonaccountable plan. If you have any questions about accountable plans, please contact our office.

As mentioned, the tax rules for business travel are complex. Please contact our office if you have any questions.

Exempt organizations

Charitable organizations often are organized as tax-exempt entities. To be tax-exempt under Code Sec. 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes in Code Sec. 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization; that is, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates. Churches that meet the requirements of Code Sec. 501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS.

Tax-exempt organizations must file annual reports with the IRS. If an organization fails to file the required reports for three consecutive years, its tax-exempt status is automatically revoked. Recently, the tax-exempt status of more than 200,000 organizations was automatically revoked. Most of these organizations are very small ones and the IRS believes that they likely did not know about the requirement to file or risk loss of tax-exempt status.  The IRS has put special procedures in place to help these small organizations regain their tax-exempt status.

Contributions

Contributions to qualified charities are tax-deductible. They key word here is qualified. The organization must be recognized by the IRS as a legitimate charity.

The IRS maintains a list of organizations eligible to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions. The list is known as Publication 78, Cumulative List of Organizations described in Section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.  Similar information is available on an IRS Business Master File (BMF) extract.

In certain cases, the IRS will allow deductions for contributions to organizations that have lost their exempt status but are listed in or covered by Publication 78 or the BMF extract.  Additionally, private foundations and sponsoring organizations of donor-advised funds generally may rely on an organization's foundation status (or supporting organization type) set forth in Publication 78 or the BMF extract for grant-making purposes.

Generally, the donor must be unaware of the change in status of the organization. If the donor had knowledge of the organization’s revocation of exempt status, knew that revocation was imminent or was responsible for the loss of status, the IRS will disallow any purported deduction.

Churches

As mentioned earlier, churches are not required to apply for tax-exempt status. This means that taxpayers may claim a charitable deduction for donations to a church that meets the Code Sec. 501(c)(3) requirements even though the church has neither sought nor received IRS recognition that it is tax-exempt.

Foreign charities

Contributions to foreign charities may be deductible under an income tax treaty. For example, taxpayers may be able to deduct contributions to certain Canadian charitable organizations covered under an income tax treaty with Canada.  Before donating to a foreign charity, please contact our office and we can determine if the contribution meets the IRS requirements for deductibility.

The rules governing charities, tax-exempt organizations and contributions are complex. Please contact our office if you have any questions.

The IRS's streamlined offer-in-compromise (OIC) program is intended to speed up the processing of OICs for qualified taxpayers. Having started in 2010, the streamlined OIC program is relatively new. The IRS recently issued instructions to its examiners, urging them to process streamlined OICs as expeditiously as possible. One recent survey estimates that one in 15 taxpayers is now in arrears on tax payments to the IRS to at least some degree.  Because of continuing fallout from the economic downturn, however, the IRS has tried to speed up its compromise process to the advantage of both hard-pressed taxpayers and its collection numbers.

OIC program

The IRS OIC program on its face can appear very attractive to taxpayers with unpaid liabilities. An OIC is an agreement between a taxpayer and the IRS that settles the taxpayer's tax liabilities for less than the full amount owed. Keep in mind that taxpayers do not automatically qualify for an OIC. The IRS has cautioned that, absent special circumstances, if you have the ability to fully pay your tax liability in a lump sum or via an installment agreement, an OIC will not be accepted.

The IRS may accept an offer in compromise based on three grounds:

• Doubt as to collectibility
• Doubt as to liability
• Effective tax administration

The decision whether to accept or reject an OIC is entirely within the discretion of the IRS. Sometimes, but very rarely, an OIC will be deemed accepted because the IRS failed to reject it within 24 months of receiving the offer.

Streamlined OICs

The low acceptance rate of OICs has some lawmakers in Congress and taxpayer groups upset. One of the most vocal critics has been National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson who has urged the IRS to bring more taxpayers into the OIC program. Partly in response to this criticism, the IRS launched the streamlined OIC in 2010. The streamlined OIC program is intended to cut through much of the red tape that surrounds OICs. The IRS promised, among other things, to process streamlined OICs more quickly.

In February 2011, the IRS announced some changes to streamlined OICs. Streamlined OICs may be offered to taxpayers with total household incomes of $100,000 or less and who have a total tax liability of less than $50,000. Taxpayers who do not meet these requirements may apply for a traditional OIC.

Procedures

The streamlined procedures do not necessarily mean that the IRS will accept more OICs; merely that it will process the offers it receives more quickly. Since the streamlined OIC program is relatively new, the IRS has not yet reported how many streamlined offers it has accepted.

Before accepting or rejecting a streamlined OIC, IRS examiners must verify that the information provided by the taxpayer is correct. The IRS instructed examiners reviewing streamlined OICs to verify taxpayer information through internal research. Examiners will verify ownership of items such as real estate, motor vehicles and other property.

Examiners also will be able to communicate directly with taxpayers or their representatives. The IRS instructed examiners to contact taxpayers or their representatives by telephone whenever possible; rather than sending written notices. Three phone attempts should be made over two business days to contact the taxpayer or his/her representative. If the examiner reaches the taxpayer's voicemail, the examiners should request a call-back within two business days.

The streamlined OIC program is not for everyone. Indeed, the acceptance rate for all OICs (just about 13,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2010) means that relatively few taxpayers will make an offer that the IRS will accept. Nonetheless, the OIC program is one tool that may be used by taxpayers with unpaid liabilities. If you have any questions about the IRS's streamlined OIC or traditional OIC, please contact our office.

A limited liability company (LLC) is a business entity created under state law. Every state and the District of Columbia have LLC statutes that govern the formation and operation of LLCs.

The main advantage of an LLC is that in general its members are not personally liable for the debts of the business. Members of LLCs enjoy similar protections from personal liability for business obligations as shareholders in a corporation or limited partners in a limited partnership. Unlike the limited partnership form, which requires that there must be at least one general partner who is personally liable for all the debts of the business, no such requirement exists in an LLC.

A second significant advantage is the flexibility of an LLC to choose its federal tax treatment. Under IRS's "check-the-box rules, an LLC can be taxed as a partnership, C corporation or S corporation for federal income tax purposes. A single-member LLC may elect to be disregarded for federal income tax purposes or taxed as an association (corporation).

LLCs are typically used for entrepreneurial enterprises with small numbers of active participants, family and other closely held businesses, real estate investments, joint ventures, and investment partnerships. However, almost any business that is not contemplating an initial public offering (IPO) in the near future might consider using an LLC as its entity of choice.

Deciding to convert an LLC to a corporation later generally has no federal tax consequences. This is rarely the case when converting a corporation to an LLC. Therefore, when in doubt between forming an LLC or a corporation at the time a business in starting up, it is often wise to opt to form an LLC. As always, exceptions apply. Another alternative from the tax side of planning is electing "S Corporation" tax status under the Internal Revenue Code.

Maintaining good financial records is an important part of running a successful business. Not only will good records help you identify strengths and weaknesses in your business' operations, but they will also help out tremendously if the IRS comes knocking on your door.

Maintaining good financial records is an important part of running a successful business. Not only will good records help you identify strengths and weaknesses in your business' operations, but they will also help out tremendously if the IRS comes knocking on your door.

The IRS requires that business owners keep adequate books and records and that they be available when needed for the administration of any provision of the Internal Revenue Code (i.e., an audit). Here are some basic guidelines:

Copies of tax returns. You must keep records that support each item of income or deduction on a business return until the statute of limitations for that return expires. In general, the statute of limitations is three years after the date on which the return was filed. Because the IRS may go back as far as six years to audit a tax return when a substantial understatement of income is suspected, it may be prudent to keep records for at least six years. In cases of suspected tax fraud or if a return is never filed, the statute of limitations never expires.

Employment taxes. Chances are that if you have employees, you've accumulated a great deal of paperwork over the years. The IRS isn't looking to give you a break either: you are required to keep all employment tax records for at least 4 years after the date the tax becomes due or is paid, whichever is later. These records include payroll tax returns and employee time documentation.

Business assets. Records relating to business assets should be kept until the statute of limitations expires for the year in which you dispose of the asset in a taxable disposition. Original acquisition documentation, (e.g. receipts, escrow statements) should be kept to compute any depreciation, amortization, or depletion deduction, and to later determine your cost basis for computing gain or loss when you sell or otherwise dispose of the asset. If your business has leased property that qualifies as a capital lease, you should retain the underlying lease agreement in case the IRS ever questions the nature of the lease.

For property received in a nontaxable exchange, additional documentation must be kept. With this type of transaction, your cost basis in the new property is the same as the cost basis of the property you disposed of, increased by the money you paid. You must keep the records on the old property, as well as on the new property, until the statute of limitations expires for the year in which you dispose of the new property in a taxable disposition.

Inventories. If your business maintains inventory, your recordkeeping requirements are even more arduous. The use of special inventory valuation methods (e.g. LIFO and UNICAP) may prolong the record retention period. For example, if you use the last-in, first-out (LIFO) method of accounting for inventory, you will need to maintain the records necessary to substantiate all costs since the first year you used LIFO.

Specific Computerized Systems Requirements

If your company has modified, or is considering modifying its computer, recordkeeping and/or imaging systems, it is essential that you take the IRS's recently updated recordkeeping requirements into consideration.

If you use a computerized system, you must be able to produce sufficient legible records to support and verify amounts shown on your business tax return and determine your correct tax liability. To meet this qualification, the machine-sensible records must reconcile with your books and business tax return. These records must provide enough detail to identify the underlying source documents. You must also keep all machine-sensible records and a complete description of the computerized portion of your recordkeeping system.

Some additional advice: when your records are no longer needed for tax purposes, think twice before discarding them; they may still be needed for other nontax purposes. Besides the wealth of information good records provide for business planning purposes, insurance companies and/or creditors may have different record retention requirements than the IRS.

After your tax returns have been filed, several questions arise: What do you do with the stack of paperwork? What should you keep? What should you throw away? Will you ever need any of these documents again? Fortunately, recent tax provisions have made it easier for you to part with some of your tax-related clutter.

After your tax returns have been filed, several questions arise: What do you do with the stack of paperwork? What should you keep? What should you throw away? Will you ever need any of these documents again? Fortunately, recent tax provisions have made it easier for you to part with some of your tax-related clutter.

The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 created quite a stir when it shifted the "burden of proof" from the taxpayer to the IRS. Although it would appear that this would translate into less of a headache for taxpayers (from a recordkeeping standpoint at least), it doesn't let us off of the hook entirely. Keeping good records is still the best defense against any future questions that the IRS may bring up. Here are some basic guidelines for you to follow as you sift through your tax and financial records:

Copies of returns. Your returns (and all supporting documentation) should be kept until the expiration of the statute of limitations for that tax year, which in most cases is three years after the date on which the return was filed. It's recommended that you keep your tax records for six years, since in some cases where a substantial understatement of income exists, the IRS may go back as far as six years to audit a tax return. In cases of suspected tax fraud or if you never file a return at all, the statute of limitations never expires.

Personal residence. With tax provisions allowing couples to generally take the first $500,000 of profits from the sale of their home tax-free, some people may think this is a good time to purge all of those escrow documents and improvement records. And for most people it is true that you only need to keep papers that document how much you paid for the house, the cost of any major improvements, and any depreciation taken over the years. But before you light a match to the rest of the heap, you need to consider the possibility of the following scenarios:

• Your gain is more than $500,000 when you eventually sell your house. It could happen. If you couple past deferred gains from prior home sales with future appreciation and inflation, you could be looking at a substantial gain when you sell your house 15+ years from now. It's also possible that tax laws will change in that time, meaning you'll want every scrap of documentation that will support a larger cost basis in the home sold.
• You did not use the home as a principal residence for a period. A relatively new income inclusion rule applies to home sales after December 31, 2008. Under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, gain from the sale of a principal residence will no longer be excluded from gross income for periods that the home was not used as the principal residence. These periods of time are referred to as "non-qualifying use." The rule applies to sales occurring after December 31, 2008, but is based only on non-qualified use periods beginning on or after January 1, 2009. The amount of gain attributed to periods of non-qualified use is the amount of gain multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the aggregate period of non-qualified use during which the property was owned by the taxpayer and the denominator of which is the period the taxpayer owned the property. Remember, however, that "non-qualified" use does not include any use prior to 2009.

• You may divorce or become widowed. While realizing more than a $500,000 gain on the sale of a home seems unattainable for most people, the gain exclusion for single people is only $250,000, definitely a more realistic number. While a widow(er) will most likely get some relief due to a step-up in basis upon the death of a spouse, an individual may find themselves with a taxable gain if they receive the house in a property settlement pursuant to a divorce. Here again, sufficient documentation to prove a larger cost basis is desirable.

Individual Retirement Accounts. Roth IRA and education IRAs require varying degrees of recordkeeping:

• Traditional IRAs. Distributions from traditional IRAs are taxable to the extent that the distributions exceed the holder's cost basis in the IRA. If you have made any nondeductible IRA contributions, then you may have basis in your IRAs. Records of IRA contributions and distributions must be kept until all funds have been withdrawn. Form 8606, Nondeductible IRAs, is used to keep track of the cost basis of your IRAs on an ongoing basis.

• Roth IRAs. Earnings from Roth IRAs are not taxable except in certain cases where there is a premature distribution prior to reaching age 59 1/2. Therefore, recordkeeping for this type of IRA is the fairly simple. Statements from your IRA trustee may be worth keeping in order to document contributions that were made should you ever need to take a withdrawal before age 59 1/2.
• Education IRAs. Because the proceeds from this type of an IRA must be used for a particular purpose (qualified tuition expenses), you should keep records of all expenditures made until the account is depleted (prior to the holder's 30th birthday). Any expenditures not deemed by the IRS to be qualified expenses will be taxable to the holder.

Investments. Brokerage firm statements, stock purchase and sales confirmations, and dividend reinvestment statements are examples of documents you should keep to verify the cost basis in your securities. If you have securities that you acquired from an inheritance or a gift, it is important to keep documentation of your cost basis. For gifts, this would include any records that support the cost basis of the securities when they were held by the person who gave you the gift. For inherited securities, you will want a copy of any estate or trust returns that were filed.

Keep in mind that there are also many nontax reasons to keep tax and financial records, such as for insurance, home/personal loan, or financial planning purposes. The decision to keep financial records should be made after all factors, including nontax factors, have been considered.